What is the evidence of an "I" period? Let alone an I that is, and is a Being within the being. I only is in Language. My Body provides obvious evidence of its own Reality, without the need of a Fictional construction, a nevessary mechanism in Grammar and thus Mind. That,
i.e. the human animal, ought to have been the given; the pre-reflective, a priori, noumenal, etc. Truth. Not our ideas about it. If "I" isn't the so called being requiring evidence then why is it that "I" was the Subject of Descartes inquiry. And where did he locate the "I" ? In thinking. And what structures that thinking? Language including its laws and dynamics such as grammar/logic, meaning, difference, Dialectic, convention and belief. — ENOAH

Sure your body predates your thoughts and language, grammar, meanings and all the rest of it. But as your body grew up and matured, your thoughts, language, grammar, meanings, perceptions and emotions all grew and matured together with our body.  Your body didn't just put together with the various electrical modules and parts like the AI.  Or your body was not thrown into the world from the sky one Sunday afternoon from nowhere, I presume.

When Descartes found his "I", he wasn't particularly looking for his "I" in the pile of worldly objects around him.  It was his "I" which he could find as the only assuring object which warranted certainty of existence.   

But you are correct in saying that "I" is not the body.  It is a linguistic concept, which was deducted from the thought.  But perhaps Descartes was looking for logical certainty on which he could embark on further reasoning into the world, mind and God.  It is good that at least Descartes found his "I" even if in the language via deduction and doubts.

Hume had no chance.  He couldn't see his own "I" no matter where he looked, there was no matching impressions or ideas of "Self".  Hume was looking for his "I" in perceptual observation, which forced him to conclude that there is no such a thing as "I".

Therefore it makes sense the concept of "I" is a contingent term in a perceptual and logical sense even if no one doubts he or she is his and her "I".  The "I" is not exactly a verified concept as such.

But what I think on the point is that, your language, thoughts, sensations, emotions, meanings are part of your mind.  They are the evidence of the existence and operations of your mind and consciousness.  Without those actions and expressions, we cannot verify the existence of mind at all.  But where does one's mind reside apart from one's living body?  Shouldn't we then conclude that your language and thoughts and meanings are a true reflection of your body? When you say "I am", you know exactly who the "I" is, and you cannot make mistake telling the "I" for anyone else, but you. Wouldn't you agree?

Apology once again for the clearly simplistic reply to your complex points on a complex matter which should take up more mental preparation/organization and space than can justify in this communal context. — ENOAH

Well the above discussion was an interesting point, and I am grateful for your interesting points and post. We all have limited time even in our daily routines and life, hence we tend to be in a position where we cannot spend more time to think and elaborate more detail for the topics which deserve the time and detail of the arguments and explanations. But how fortunate for us even to be able to have the brief moments to be able to read and think on these compelling points in philosophy, and exchange our opinions and keep on learning. :)

Anil Seth says he's 'entirely comfortable' with 'the mind extending beyond the brain', holding up his iPhone to make the point, one I agree with. Overall, I liked Seth's presentation, although I would question his claim that 'the mystery of life' has been 'solved' due to our better understanding of organic biochemistry. — Wayfarer

Agreed. Good point. The mystery of life still remains, so does mind as a property of life.

Re Sheldrake, I have 'The Science Delusion' and 'Presence of the Past'. I'm probably more open to Sheldrake than many but I'm afraid most of what he has to say won't change any minds, I suspect. I will review a bit more of the Q&A later. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. I found Sheldrake's points interesting too, although they lack evidence in the arguments.

Sheldrake insists that there is ample empirical evidence for 'the sense of being stared at' and also people's sixth sense about who is going to call them. Of course many people will rubbish Sheldrake purely on the basis that it can't be so, because it proposes something like 'spooky action at a distance' between minds. I myself am open to such ideas, as I don't hold to materialist beliefs, and I think it's eminently possible that there are biological fields, analogous to but separate from electro-magnetic fields. That is touched on in the discussion at various points. The problem is, there is no way of empirically proving it, other than something like what Sheldrake has tried to do with his experiments on morphic fields, because as they're not electro-magnetic in nature, then what kind of instruments can be used to detect them? Maybe (big maybe!) living organisms detect them, but it is not something one can be consciously aware of. (You can find more about Sheldrake on his site https://www.sheldrake.org/ . I was made aware of him in my 20's when one of my father's professional associates, a reader in medicine, sent him a photocopied article on Sheldrake's first book, back in the 1980's. This associate was rather an adventurous and non-orthodox thinker, hence his interest. There's a link on his website to an article about attitudes towards him, amusingly called 'The Sense of Being Glared At'.)

Also I mentioned in my above comment that Tanya Luhrman reminded me of Julian Jaynes' 'Bicameral Mind' theory. She does explicitly mention that here and there's some discussion of it.

Sheldrake has a major soliloquy starting here ('basically, I think brains are over-rated').

Yes, the Youtube videos were interesting in that the presenters were all heretic types contrasting from the traditional science perspective in their presentations. It is also interesting to hear that you had come across the book by Sheldrake in the 80s via the acquaintance of your father in the 80s.

All 3 of them seem to believe in the claims that the human mind can do more than what is expected in the daily life of the ordinary folks, and also what the brain can perform as the biological and neurological science descriptions and specification of the physical organ which is to operate in the realm of the physical cause and effect principles, and neurobiological knowledge.

Seth's story on the case that when some part of the brain had been removed by surgical operations due to the patient's illness, impairing visual perception of the patient in a drastic way, but the patient recovers the lost sight to some degree later in his life proves that mind is more than just the physical brain. This point had been further supported by another speaker in his presentation demonstrating the scientific experiments he conducted through the long periods of time in his career as a scientist.

Luhrman's stories about how people perceive their Gods as real by praying and speaking seem to suggest the human brain sees more than what is visible, and could it be one of the signs of hallucinating character of the mind in perception of the world?

Sheldrake's story on human minds noticing the glares of the other folks even when not seeing them directly is definitely a common experience by many ordinary people, and I am sure it is definitely one of the signs of the human consciousness that extends beyond the brain. But as you indicated it is difficult to prove with the scientific experiments and evidence. But it still is an interesting and compelling point for the big picture of the mind extending over the physical brain.

All these stories seem to prove that human mind is different from that of the machine intelligence and AI mind in that, the human minds extends beyond what is expected and specified in the sciences i.e. recovering the mental operations even when the part of the brain is removed by the surgical operation, seeing and perceiving abstract religious existence when they are invisible to the other most ordinary people, and noticing perceptual glares of others directed at them when not directly faced to the glares. These aspects of human mind operations would be something that are impossible for any machine or AI intelligence to perform or to be expected ever under all the similar circumstances.

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that.

Sheldrake insists that there is ample empirical evidence for 'the sense of being stared at' and also people's sixth sense about who is going to call them. — Wayfarer

Where can I find this ample evidence? I say nonsense. These can be tested easily and as frequently as anyone could want. For every time someone thought X would call, and X did, there are many thousands of times someone called without a premonition, and the feeling X would call but didn't. And just start staring at people's backs. Restaurants, movies theaters, whatever. See how many feel it and turn to find you.

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that. — Corvus

For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to?

Sheldrake has published a lot of papers and books. I’m not going to come to his defence, as hostility towards PSI research is notorious and it’s a very nasty debate, and I don’t have a dog in the fight. But one point he does make, and which I’ve read elsewhere, is that one of the arguments that is routinely invoked against PSI is that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. PSI phenomena are categorised as ‘extraordinary’ as a matter of definition, and so whatever statistical evidence is adduced in favour of, say, ‘remote viewing’ is said to require far higher standards of statistical significance than, say, epidemiological studies do. And defenders of PSI say that this allows for a fair amount of goal-post shifting when it comes to reviewing the results of PSI experiments. Whereas, the PSI proponents might argue that extra-sensory perception is actually not extraordinary at all, but something that occurs frequently in both animals and humans. It’s the philosophical implications of that which should be of interest on this forum, because if it is true - not saying it is! - then it indicates a significant gap in our understanding of the nature of life and mind.

I’m not especially interested in PSI research - I’ve tried to read up on it, but a lot of it amounts to arguments about statistical significance. But I have a hard time accepting that all of the accounts of psychic phenomena that have occurred throughout history are simple falsehoods. I am more inclined to the view that there’s something about them which makes them almost impossible to validate against what we regard as scientific standards. But I’m content to leave it as an open question and not to try and prove the case one way or the other.

I did notice in the video - and I did review the whole presentation - Anil Seth’s closing statement. I was very impressed by Seth overall, his demeanour and attitude were exemplary, so I’m not trying to ‘pick holes’ or anything. But in reviewing Luhrmann and Sheldrake’s statements about the reality of ‘transcendent experience’ (for want of a better term), he said they should be taken seriously but not literally, because to take them literally would be to ‘overturn 400 years of scientific consensus’. Mind you, he also added, much to his credit, that if this was necessary in the end, then so be it, demonstrating a real open-mindedness. But from the perspective of history of ideas, the 400 year figure is significant, I take it to be a reference to ‘since the “Scientific Revolution”. Meaning that, we have a consensus view of the nature of reality, and that view is, at the end of the day, that the physical sciences are definitive, and that psychic phenomena and belief in higher planes of being can only be understood in subjective terms.

Meaning that, we have a consensus view of the nature of reality, and that view is, at the end of the day, that the physical sciences are definitive, and that psychic phenomena and belief in higher planes of being can only be understood in subjective terms. — Wayfarer

Psi. (Pun intended.)

It seems to me that, if PSI is real, it says something about the nature of mind and consciousness. It would change how we approach, well, everything. It sure would be nice to know.

I have no experience with PSI. I don't know anyone else who does, either.

For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to? — Patterner

Human consciousness has been formed via life long lived experience. It has the biological foundation of course, but also educational, societal and evolutional backgrounds.

AI intelligence is made up on the spot with the electric parts, and loaded with human designed software system and pre-stored custom database. The two cannot be possibly regarded equal. AI wouldn't have a clue or idea on some of the mental states formed from the experiences humans have gone through while having been living in the societies interacting with the other humans and nature. And each and every human beings' mental states would be unique and special to the individuals due to difference in the genetic makeup in the brains as well as unique personal experiences they have gone through.

This fact won't change no matter how far future you are talking about unless you can give births to the biological AI machines yourself, and bring them up from the newborns feeding with milk and sending them to the kindergartens and primary schools, middle and high schools and college and universities. But IF you could have done this, and brought up some AI machines biologically and humanly, then are they AI machines at all? Were you talking about a human whose name happen to be AI, or was it 100% machine AIs? In fact I used to know a Japanese woman called Ai. Ai was a 100% human female.

You make it clear why AI will never be human.

You make it clear why AI will never be human. — Patterner

:nerd:

That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium?

Our physical brains operate under physical laws — Patterner

Physical laws goven physical things, but language and reason operate by different principles, let alone many other of the subtle abilities of the mind, and not only the human mind.

In respect of Sheldrake's morphic fields and morphic resonance, here is his introductory page. His basic idea is that nature forms habits, that once something has begun to form in a certain way, there is a greater tendency for it to form that way thereafter. I understand that this is generally rejected by most scientists on the grounds that it cannot be understood in physical or electromagnetic terms. 'When Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life was published in 1981, Sir John Maddox, then editor of Nature, thundered that it was an "infuriating tract" and "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years". When asked later why so, he responded '"Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy."'

Sheldrake has been very active of late on internet panel discussions such as those hosted by IAI (Institute of Art and Ideas), alongside the likes of Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder. He's often regarded with a kind of bemused tolerance, like an endearing older relative who has odd beliefs. But at least he does have a place in the discussion, which I find encouraging, as I've always rather liked him. I can't say that I've been through his research papers in any depth, but I'm open to his ideas.

(Incidentally, last night a minor tremor affected a wide area of Western Sydney and the adjacent Blue Mountains where we live. It was a single shock, the windows rattled, it felt like a distant explosion or sonic boom. We didn't know what had happened until news reports several hours later. But as is often the case, many callers to the news reported that their dogs started barking minutes before it happened. Due, it is believed, to animals being able to detect changes in electromagnetic fields, although nobody actually knows - see this.)

That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium? — Patterner

My previous post here should cover answering your question. If you could read it again, and find any problems, please let me know. Thanks.

That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't?

That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't? — Patterner

The medium was secondary consideration. The main consideration was human consciousness being property or character of lived life backed up by experience interacting with the other minds in the society and world, having gone through the educational system and also grounded on the millions of years of evolution.

Compare the human mind described above with AI just assembled somewhere in China with the electrical computer chips and parts, loaded with the knowledge expert software full of operational bugs which have to go through umpteen updates before getting close to half useful. Would you honestly believe AI will be same as human consciousness even after so many hundred years?

You seem to be mistaking consciousness with intelligence too. The two are not the same. A device can be more intelligent than the other device or agents in terms of only in some preset tasks, but it could be useless or dumb in other tasks. Being intelligent doesn't mean it is conscious, because consciousness can only arise from the living agents.

I don't really get why AI has become a topic in this thread, when it wasn't even discussed in the presentation that the thread refers to, and when it is the perennial topic of discussion in numerous other threads. Here is a 1980's era documentary on Sheldrake from the BBC about his life, theories and the (generally hostile) reception to his work. (Sheldrake notes towards the end that he was an early victim of 'cancel culture', when invitations from student bodies for him to lecture would be rejected by the University boards on the grounds that students ought not to be exposed to such nonsense.)

Due, it is believed, to animals being able to detect changes in electromagnetic fields, although nobody actually knows - see this.) — Wayfarer

I can't read that, because I don't subscribe. But didn't John Travolta answer this in Phenomenon?

Physical laws goven physical things, but language and reason operate by different principles, let alone many other of the subtle abilities of the mind, and not only the human mind. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Hence, the Hard Problem. But I don't know why this can only happen when the medium is a biological brain.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of Sheldrake until this thread.

You’re welcome. Sorry didn’t realize that link was paywalled.

I don't really get why AI has become a topic in this thread, when it wasn't even discussed in the presentation that the thread refers to, and when it is the perennial topic of discussion in numerous other threads. — Wayfarer

I recall Seth saying briefly in his presentation that human consciousness cannot be replicated in any form of AI or machine intelligence due to the fact that consciousness is a product of lived life with real experience in the world.

But as you said rightly, it is neither the main point of the OP, nor the Youtube presentations.